abstract - vixra.org

Theodore J. St. John June 21, 2021 1

The Holomorphic Quantum.

A Systems Approach to Understanding the Nature of Reality

Theodore J. St. John

Abstract Quantum Mechanics is appropriately named because it is mostly about the

mechanics of working out probability problems as they apply to the mysterious

effect of measurement that makes energy present as quantum particle-waves. It is

easy to visualize a quantum particle but there seems to be no way to visualize a

“probability wave” so there has never been a clear interpretation of what quantum

physics tells us – or should tell us – about the underlying essence of reality.

Fortunately, a new approach was discovered and proven to work in biology that

threats the mystery of life like a locking system and provides not only the key, but

also the keyhole and the direction in which to turn it.

In this paper the systems approach is introduced, including some

background information on the history of how the systems approach integrated

elements of substance philosophy with process philosophy and has become a

powerful tool for use in science. Here, it is applied to physics and used to represent

the transformation of implicit energy into an explicit space-time quantum domain

superimposed on a relativistic time-space background. These two “products” are

then correlated with two of four blocks in a basic control-system diagram (input and

output) commonly used in control-systems engineering. (The four blocks are input,

transfer function, output and feedback function) Because they are explicit, they can

be drawn explicitly on the space versus time plot as a map of motion. We emphasize

that this is a map – an explicit projection of an implicit function (in this case, a plot of

space versus time is a projection of the variance we call motion) represented as an

implicit domain (a perpendicular dimension). We recognizing that a feedback

function is equivalent to and therefore implies a back-projection or reflection back

“up” into that “implicate order.” These two implicit functions (projection and


reflection) are then correlated with the transfer function and feedback function in

the control system.

If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first

55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could

solve the problem in less than five minutes.

– Albert Einstein, (1879 - 1955)

I have had a lifetime to solve the problem of understanding the underlying essence of reality and

spent 55 years determining the proper question. I feel that I found the right question and solved

the problem. Now, at the age of 60, I am still trying to spell it out as plainly as I can with the

limited power of the English language supplemented by the language of science.

– Theodore J. St. John (1960 – present)

The motion function is related to the probability wave by the statistics name

– the “variance” of a statistical distribution – and we point out that each axis of the

space-time domain is scaled by standard “deviations,” which define the explicit

scales. Because a standard deviation is the square root of a variance, the square

space that maps as a relativistic scalar plot (a standard Cartesian coordinate

system) of space versus time or “space-time” actually represents one of two square

roots of the implicit variance we call motion. Thus our measurements of this domain

keep us rooted in physical reality. However, this coordinate system is shown to be

just the root – one part of a “whole system” that includes a non-physical implicit

feedback function. The feedback function is correlated with the “reflection” of the

explicit domain, i.e. inverse-space and inverse-time, presented as a phase space

called time-space and represented as a unit of spatial frequency versus temporal

frequency.

These frequency representations are shown to be the two well-known

equations for quantum energy from quantum mechanics and they are used to

identify energy-space as “the quantum domain” inside of, or superimposed on the

background “relativistic domain,” which is a scalar space These two domains are

then shown to be coupled at the point where both scales are equal to “1”. As a whole,


and in the language of quantum field theory, this model is a graphical representation

of an energy-momentum tensor and as a visual model, it provides a clear conceptual

interpretation of complexity theory, in which reality is expressed as the

superposition of a self-organizing control system that convolves with a dissipative

open system or “sea of disorder” and transforms it into physical units of order.

This approach reveals that the question about the beginning of time is a

question fallacy, by revealing the equivalence of space and time as , and

presents it geometrically to be the exact same relation as the mass-energy

equivalence equation . The model also reveals that quantized energy

projects as a characteristic and allows one to visualize the solution to the particle-

wave duality “problem” as being a change in perspective. It’s the change in

perspective that makes the particle-like property and wave-like property appear as

“emergent” – analogous to what would appear when one visualizes an object from

two different perspectives – at rest with respect to one’s own body yet in motion

relative to some other “moving” body.

The approach also reveals how the transfer function and feedback function

act to transform matter, adding the fourth component (the Controller) and making it

a complete control system: a self-organizing, self-sensing system that can see itself

explicitly and reflect upon itself implicitly. How that correlates with living systems

becomes obvious.

Introduction

A systems view of physics This presentation makes use of a new perspective in science called a

“systems view of reality” (Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, A Unifying

Vision 2014) to present a working process model that will help in understanding

physics, including quantum and relativistic mechanics. Most people are aware that

the discovery of quantum physics around 1900 marked the beginning of a scientific

revolution, but many do not know much about some real breakthroughs that began

in the early 1960s with the discovery that there is order in chaos, or to say it


another way, the order that we see in our world emerges out of disorder. The

breakthrough was in the discovery that systems with feedback, whether it is a

physical connection or just the atmospheric surroundings, is the key component

that allows any system to find its own order. This discovery led to a breakthrough in

mathematics with the formulation of complexity theory, technically known as

“nonlinear dynamics” in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 1980s and 1990s,

complexity theory was welcomed into the biological sciences and “the strong

interest in nonlinear phenomena generated a whole series of new and powerful

theoretical models that have dramatically increased our understanding of many key

characteristics of life.” (Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, A Unifying Vision

2014, Pg. 12)

For the first time in history since the advent of Newtonian physics, serious

scientists have broken free of the restrictions that forbid discussion and

consideration of metaphysical ideas and have since discovered that this new degree

of freedom has resulted in meta-science – a science that is beyond modern science –

a very scientific approach to understanding meta-phenomena like metabolism and

metamorphoses. It is currently being used to develop cybernetics, artificial

intelligence and in cognitive science research, providing breakthroughs in the

understanding of consciousness. This essay presents a meta-scientific model, called

the holomorphic quantum systems model that uses feedback from these areas and

applies this systems approach to reshape the way we look at physics.

What we call “modern physics” (Anderson 1982) usually refers to the

conceptual developments of the twentieth century in contrast to “classical physics,”

which includes all physics that was conceived prior to 1900. Modern physics did not

render classical physics obsolete, out-of-touch or even old-fashioned. In fact, most of

the problems of our everyday world can still be solved with classical physics. At the

time when quantum phenomena were discovered, it was just the newest thing that

physicists wanted to understand. Unfortunately, after 100 years of work, there is

still a significant problem with understanding it.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics has been, and still is the

most widely accepted explanation of quantum phenomena. Treating the quantum


wave function as a probability wave is mathematically simple, accurate and very

useful, so there doesn’t seem to be a need to fix it. However, in a recent study on the

effectiveness of teaching and learning quantum mechanics, it was found that there

are significant misconceptions and a variety of mixed interpretations of quantum

concepts. (Krijten-Lewerissa, et al. 2017) The study also concluded that the most

effective teaching methods placed emphasis upon visualization and conceptual

understanding, and that this approach has made it possible to introduce quantum

mechanics at an earlier stage. But visualization means “the formation of a mental

image of something,” so if the concept that you are trying to understand has no form,

it is impossible to visualize without using analogies that have form. The challenge

for the teacher is to give it form because when they do, they create the classical

misconceptions. The systems view provides a solution as a meta-form, i.e. a

metaphor.

Mathematicians may be perfectly comfortable visualizing quantum

phenomena as groups of matrices, but that is very unsatisfying to some, especially at

the undergraduate level. So rather than trying to visualize the quantum, or

memorize matrices, some teachers have us settle for visualizing a series of

mysterious boxes, even the meat grinder analogy (Morrison 1990, Pg. 5) that have

inputs and outputs, ignoring what happens inside the boxes. This is a little more

satisfying because, even though they don’t fully understand the quantum, or what

goes on inside the box, they understand that it is a process.

The new way of thinking about reality in terms of feedback systems has

gotten the attention of many mainstream physicists, including the author of this

paper. In fact, the very notion of this new information getting one’s attention and

serving to modify the way one thinks about an old concept, is an illustration of a

feedback system at work. Normally the feedback in a system mixes with the input to

produce a modified output signal, and that is what usually happens in research; a

new output is just an addition or slight modification to the current branch of

science. However, in some systems, there comes a time when the system reaches a

critical point and requires a shift, like the paradigm shift that gave birth to modern

physics. Likewise, the systems way of thinking requires a shift in the way we think


about reality. This perspective is a strategic point of view that transcends the space-

time and time-space domains, making this a scientific treatise on metaphysics –

emphasizing that “meta” means beyond, not mysterious, esoteric, pseudo or

woowoo.

The primary characteristic feature of systems thinking is that rather than

thinking of smaller substances as fundamental bases or constituents of reality, it

focuses on process as the basis for substance. Once the systems approach (as applied

to quantum phenomena) is understood, other “theories” and specialized branches of

physics can be seen in the same light. The same approach may then be applied to

them, and the different way of looking at physics will change physics as a wholei from

a substance-based philosophy to a systems-based philosophy.

Substance philosophy was the basis for mechanistic science; it focused on

static physical properties of matter and was used to build the structure and

establish all branches in “the tree” of science. About the same time that quantum

physics arrived on the scene, Process Philosophy, which focuses on the physics of

becoming as opposed to the physics of being, took its place and played its new, albeit

minor role in forming “the tree.” It is a new role, but not a new philosophy. Process

philosophy stems back in history as far as substance philosophy to include the pre-

Socratic philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC). In the early

twentieth century, it was applied to mathematics by Alfred North Whitehead and

Bertrand Russell in their seminal book Principia Mathematica, and extended to the

natural sciences by Whitehead in his book Process and Reality. (Whitehead 1929)

However, it still had more of a teleological spin to it and remained separated from

mainstream science.

On the other hand, application of process philosophy to life eventually made

its way into the mainstream (Eastman and Keeton 2004) and began to revolutionize

biological science. (Varela and Maturana 1972/1980) In the early 1900s the

structure of Biology had been established, thanks to the mechanistic substance

philosophy, and provided the means for understanding structures and functions of

biological cells’ subunits. Biological units had been studied in parallel, but biologists

recognized that this approach failed to provide any explanation for how those


functions were coordinated or integrated into the functioning of a cell as a whole.

Then when these systems and subsystems were viewed as parts of a common

process, they were seen as multilevel structures – systems within systems. The

transformation of the process from a lower-level system to a higher level was seen

to result in morphism – a change in physical form. “Process morphology” then refers

to the notion that living structures such as leaves of plants do not have processes,

they are processes. They recognized how the process of morphism was a type of

self-organization and the school of thought that became known as “organicism” or

“organismic biology” focused on organization and organizing relations.

The shape of things to come Researchers noted that processes, which emerge at higher levels, were the

same as underlying processes yet the emergent properties were different than the

properties known to exist at lower levels. This clearly suggests that the process is

more fundamental than the substance, as philosopher C. D. Broad (1887-1971) had

explained in the early 1920s when he coined the term “emergent properties.” This

idea was not very relevant to physics because in physics, a property is considered to

be static, i.e. the unchanging characteristic that defines a substance, not something

that can emerge, or disappear. That is what is changing in the minds of the new

systems-minded physicists. What used to be considered a fundamental property is

now considered a phase characteristic, which is something that is common to

biology, psychology and even teleology, where characteristic is seen as a “character

role.” So if we were to identify a paradigm shift between “old physics” (to include

both classical physics and modern physics) and the new physics of wholeness, this

would be it.

Quantum physics recognizes the fact that energy changes its role (particle or

wave) depending on how the observer takes a measurement, so the observer must

be included as another character. Furthermore, the observer can also change his

character role from operational (or tactical, down in the weeds of chaos) to strategic

(elevated, bird’s eye view from where islands of order can be seen). These two are

more like functional roles than supporting roles. As the systems approach continues


to prove itself in other applications, physicists have begun to see the common

threats and patterns, and recognize that the same patterns are evident in other sub

branches of physics. Upon reflection, more common patterns will be seen and it will

become clear that the same phenomena had been given different names simply

because they were not understood when they were named and that seemed to hide

the underlying process. Some things in physics, like units (Newtons of force,

Coulombs of charge), or spaces (like Cartesian or Hilbert space) were named after

the person who formulated the theory, and thus the names have nothing to do with

the process.

As the inner workings of the process are understood and validated and the

same characteristics of the process are seen in other areas of science, it is really just

a matter of translating from that model to the others and from one branch of science

to another. Rather than resisting the idea of a changing property of matter, a

physicist can see it, not as a contradiction, but as a change in the implied meaning of

the word that was previously used. Rather than thinking of the fundamental

properties of matter as being static or eternal, we can think of them as “emergent

properties” – an explicit product of an implicit process.

What is meant by the inner workings of the process, in the first line of the

paragraph above? Is there a single inner process that works in every living process –

a “mono-process” that all processes can be reduced to that will correlate with the

fundamental properties expressed as the standard model of particle physics? In

order to answer these questions, we will need to distinguish between a process and

the products of a process. A process is implicit whereas the products are explicit

units that capture the process “in a nutshell”; they are explicit component models of

the process. Regardless of what scale we are talking about, from quantum particles,

to regular life-sized objects that obey the laws of classical physics, physical systems

are explicit models that express (like a metaphor) the same mono-process, which

will be presented in the next section.


An explicit model of a system The trick to expressing something implicit as a set of explicit steps is to

choose the right names for the steps. The right names are names that express the

implicit action as explicit things that appear or emerge at explicit locations. That

way, we express (action) an expression (thing) as a model. The standard model used

in engineering for a control system – what we could call a “mono-process” – is

shown in Figure 1, where input, output, controller and feedback are the standard

explicit names (things) used for the inner workings (actions) at each location.

(Ogata 1970, Pg. 4) The symbols explicitly identify each function and imply or

implicitly express what the function is doing (explicitly represented by arrows) and

where it is located in the process (presented by the process yet re-presented by

words, names, lines and blocks). Together these descriptions reveal a dualistic

nature (implicit and explicit) and “character” of the system as a whole is explicitly

identified in its own box, named “Function.”

Figure 1 Block diagram of a simple closed-loop system

The process of drawing Figure 1 involved “scribing” the static lines and

shapes and then “de-scribing” using dynamic words to express the character roles

that the process requires. It is easier to describe “the function” when it is expressed

by an electronic system or control “circuit” because there, it is called a “signal” and it

is easy to imagine a vibrational pattern or modulated wave passing through and

around an electronic circuit. As an observer, looking at it and reading the

description, you the reader implicitly “connected” with the system at “the output”

and “the signal” was effectively transmitted, transformed and translated into your

mind. If you were one who read the first version of this presentation and gave the


author feedback “signals,” then you would fit in the feedback block of the system

that created this thesis and helped give it its current emergent characteristics.

“The character” of something is equivalent to an explicit property – the static

form of its “characteristics” – and the name or label “scribes” where it is in the

system. What it does is the implicit, dynamic function – equivalent to momentum in

physics. The process makes the signal appear to change its character role in the

system depending on how and where one looks at it in the system. Thus “the output”

is exactly the same signal as “the input” with the same directional attitude, but it has

a new “emergent character” (as if the same signal plays another role in a different

location).

In Figure 1, the output signal is drawn to show a higher degree of amplitude,

and we don’t consider amplitude to be a different “property” in physics. On the

other hand, if the output of this system is connected to the input of another and the

higher degree of amplitude reaches a critical point that is characteristic of that

system, then the output of the whole will change and appear as a new “emergent

property.” Now if we follow this logic “downward” or “inward” to the quantum level,

where the “inner workings of the process” are purely implicit (vibrations), we can

see how this process would account for all of the slightly different characteristics of

elementary quantum particles. Then, as the process produces an upward cascade or

“bubbling” of new emergent properties, it can account for the periodic structure of

the table of elements and all of the different properties of matter, as suggested by

Cahill. (Cahill 2005)

Three components (input, output and feedback) were all that was needed to

make a closed-loop system, but the feedback has to “feed” the input, which is a

function. Or we could say that the input line has to accept or even “eat” the feedback

and this is the function of the fourth component labeled “Controller” in Figure 1. At

the quantum level we call this controller a “quantum operator” and the “transfer

function” component is correlates with the “quantum wave function”.

The fact that there is a physical reality for us to even talk about means that

the quantum system is already “up and running.” We are physically part of the

system, our bodies being made up of the explicit “output” particles that play the


tactical role as operators. And we are implicitly part of the system, our minds being

able to look down at the circuit from the elevated strategic perspective and analyze

it as if we were explicit components, separate from yet implicitly connected via

signals fed back to us as Controllers from a higher dimension. In the literature

referenced by Capra and Luisi, this is referred to as downward causation.

The systems approach allows us to distinguish living organisms from non-

living matter by referring to this feedback link as its own controller. Non-living

refers to the organized patterns of energy that are components within a larger

system and actively being maintained in static equilibrium by interacting with each

other from the outside. We think of this as an open system, and it appears to be in

static equilibrium because we cannot actually see the activity or the feedback

without zooming in and looking beneath the surface of what appears to be the static

boundary. Quantum physicists have done that so even though we can’t see it, we

know that what we call non-living matter is still a projection of the quantum

process. It is simply the most elementary level and lacks the self-controller. We call

living matter “organisms” because they (we) are able take action that will affect our

own organization, to self-organize (called “autopoiesis”), self-adapt and even self-

destruct. At this level, the feedback and controller serve to form and inform the

system and equilibrium is called homeostasis.

The systems approach also allows us to distinguish between organisms that

are self-conscious and those that are just conscious. Once an organism is “born” or

the system is “up and running” – differentiated from the parent and “projected” as a

self-organizing system, it has a property that lower systems lack. That property

correlates with what we call consciousness. It’s what puts the “self” in self-

organizing. It can form itself and reform itself to maintain its structure, acting in

self-interest and reacting to outside interactions, but it cannot rise above its own

plane to see its “insides” and therefore cannot in-form itself. In other words, it is

conscious but not self-conscious, i.e. conscious of its own consciousness. In order to

be self-conscious, it would need for a new, parallel output signal to emerge as an

implicit feedback network that serves as a reflective property, a mirror image of


itself that could provide a higher perspective and inform itself from the higher

dimension.

As we mentioned, these ideas have been serving to advance biology and

cognitive science. There are plenty of manmade systems that could serve as

metaphors, like an electronic transceiver circuit, but there are also natural systems

that are even better. We could say that the ideas have been fermenting and need to

be distilled and expressed in the spirit (like alcohol) of both classical and quantum

physics. One systems-minded physicist goes even further out on a limb and refers to

ancient mystery teachings and expresses the mystery in terms of the alchemical

process of transformation. (Bullard 2012) The new “systems science” intentionally

makes use of many metaphors. This is because metaphors are models that allow one

to express the spirit (the implicit free-space connection) of the underlying process

rather than focusing on the physical substance or branch of science being used as an

explicit model. This allows us to extend our basic concepts, initially embodied by

physical matter, into abstract theoretical domains. Metaphorically speaking,

substance philosophy provides the lock and key and process philosophy provides the

keyhole and direction in which to turn the key. Both are necessary to unlock the

mysteries of the universe.

Organization As a whole, presentation of the system approach is organized into four parts,

to express four fundamental functions in the process. These functions were

expressed in the previous section as 1) Input, 2) Transfer Function, 3), Feedback

and 4) Output. Recall that “Controller” is not included, because it is considered a

higher-level function that emerges at the next level. The four functions have been

previously described as steps, expressed as 1) separation, 2) projection, 3)

reflection, and 4) reintegrationii and the process model was called the “Holomorphic

Process Model”. (St.John 2018)

The holomorphic process terminology can be applied to the previous section

of this paper by saying that it (the section itself) represented a “separation” from the

current mainstream or modern way of thinking about physics and a “projection” of


the new systems way of thinking. The next section of this presentation will play the

role of reflection (the third step of the holomorphic process); we will reflect on the

old, using an explicit graph to visually represent the relationships between space,

time and motion. In this reflection, we point out the distortions caused by thinking

in terms of unity rather than wholeness. “Unity” in physics is expressed as a

“singularity” and will be called “the zero-point problem” here. We will eliminate the

problem by reintegrating (the fourth step of the holomorphic process) the variables

space and time and refer them back to motion as the higher dimension. We will also

reintegrate quantum mechanics with probability theory by reflecting on terms from

statistics correlating “variables” in each physics dimension with variances and

recognize that variables were actually units of standard deviation, separated by how

they appeared from different perspectives and thus projected or expressed

differently and given different names.

Next, we will reintegrate the two expressions (variance as a whole and

variables as measurable units) as a composite diagram to present motion as a

projection of energy in the time-space and space-time. This composite diagram will

1. demonstrate space-time equivalence as : exactly the same relation as

2. make the zero-point problem a non-issue (no singularity) yet allow for an

understanding of zero-point energy,

3. reveal the relativistic equations for energy of a quantum particle as two

components (state vectors) of a quantum wave function (a composite space-

time vector).

4. allow one to visualize the particle-wave duality as a duality in perspective of a

non-dualistic or undifferentiated whole, the same as you can visualize an

object both at rest yet simultaneously in motion with respect to a moving

reference,

5. re-present the background (free-space and objects in time-space) as being an

integral part of the whole system, giving the observer the potential or power


to see it as either a stationary object (particulate form) or as an integral part

of the entire universe (system form), and

6. provide a structural framework for representing the quantum particle as a

holographic image that takes form as a spherical standing wave – “an island

of order in a sea of disorder.” (Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, A

Unifying Vision 2014, Pg. 116 & 160)

The Space-Time-Motion Diagram

Reflecting on Minkowski space-time

To set up the visual model, we begin with a graph of the variable (or

variance) we call space ( ) versus the variance we call time ( ) as in

Figure 2a. The only difference between Figure 2a and the old, standard Cartesian

map is that we recognize space and time as implicit variances rather than explicit

variable measurements, which in the language of statistics would be called standard

deviations. We imagine a flash of light at the origin that expands spherically

outward in space ( ) at the speed of light . Thus

is represented by the diagonal line (with in “natural units”) from the

origin. So when the clock ticks 1 time unit, (a coordinate point on the T axis), the plot

of the function must be moved out on the diagonal to correlate with the movement

of the surface of the light sphere to 1 “light unit”. This point can also be projected to

a coordinate on the S axis as a reflection of outward motion in space.

In mathematical language, upper case and would be called the modulus of

space and the modulus of time, where and are “square spaces”

meaning that they require at least 2 dimensions to describe them. Therefore the

plane as a whole represents a 4-dimensional domain. The S is the variance we call

“space” and we see it as it exists in time, so technically, we should call it “time-

space.” The T is the variance we call “time” and is correlated with this particular use


of the word “space”, so technically we should call it space-time. We will explain what

is meant by “this particular use of the word space” below.

Some readers may be familiar with the Minkowski spacetime (ST) formalism,

which was explicitly named by mathematician Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909)

and used by Albert Einstein (1879-1955) to illustrate this newly conceived concept

of “spacetime” as a four-dimensional continuum. However, it was presented as a

model before the importance of the systems approach was realized, so there was no

reason to differentiate between time-space and space-time. Calling it “spacetime”

was just an attempt to reunify space and time rather than reintegrating them as a

whole, despite the fact that it required a four-dimensional expression. Now that the

systems way of thinking has proved itself in other areas of science, and

demonstrated the importance of understanding that the whole is greater than the

sum of its parts, it is important for the physics branch of science to accept the

feedback and be willing to adapt its language and reform to the new perspective.

a. b.

Figure 2 (a) A plot in natural units (c=1) of space vs. time that illustrates that a light-unit travels or

“varies” one unit of distance (light-second) in one unit of time (second) (b) Minkowski’s time vs. space

diagram is normally shown with time as the verticle axis and space as a horizontal plane. The time axis is

mirrored to represent the past as negative time and the future as positive time. However the ability to

visualize the relations with this graph has failed since space is represented as a 2D “hypersurface of the

present”.


Time-space versus phase-space We will return to Figure 2a and 2b, but first we need to understand the

reason that it is important to differentiate between space-time and time-space.

Firstly, the term “time-space” specifies a type of space. This is important to realize

because there are different types of spaces other than “this particular use of the

word space”. For example “phase-space” refers to an explicit representation of a

system that forms an organized pattern. It’s a phase because a particular pattern or

property relates it to a characteristic phase. There is no fundamental difference

between time-space and phase-space, so we shouldn’t think in terms of some

mysterious parallel universe. It’s all the same “free-space” in reality, but in practice,

and as an expression of information, the type expresses the difference, and it’s the

difference that makes a difference in our understanding of the phenomena they

represent. Time-space is what we would normally use to plot some measurable

deviation with respect to standard clock-time. Phase-space is used to plot a variance

that happens in cycles in order to analyze if something changes after a certain

number of cycles or at certain critical values of another variance like amplitude.

Rather than using time as the horizontal axis, time is used along with angular

frequency to scale the angle. The space is then presented as a phase-space diagram.

A phase-space diagram is also called a “phasor diagram” and is commonly

used in engineering, but not generally in physics. A “phasor,” or phase vector,

represents a wave of constant amplitude (A) and two rotating phasors of length A

(one for spatial measurement and the other for temporal measurement) point out

from the origin like the hands of a clock with both hands the same length. They are

usually shown as a single vector because they start at the same angle, corresponding

to .

We should also discuss different kinds of time, but since units of time are

explicit expressions of implicit concepts like change, motion, etc. it cannot be

visualized as anything other than a “point,” so time is expressed as “a point in time.”

We ignore the fact that something is happening between each tick of the clock even

though we know that clocks are based on cycles. We could call it “blank-time” and

then fill in the blank to specify the chosen cycle, but instead we call it space-time. If


we used a pendulum we could use of a unit of “pendulum-time”: the pendulum

swings down from an initial height, where it had zero velocity and maximum

negative angle, to a low-point where it has maximum velocity and zero angle, and

then up to the opposite-side to its a stopping point, where it again has zero velocity.

If we then plot velocity (positive or negative) versus angle (positive or negative) and

scale each axis appropriately, we would produce a circular trajectory in phase-

space, which would describe the pendulum’s state of motion completely.

Phase-space diagrams project time explicitly as a shaped unit of motion.

Generic time-space (or clock-space) projects time explicitly as a circular-shaped unit

of motion; a circular clock is just like a pendulum that goes all the way around. If we

turn that last statement around, we could say that space-time projects motion (or

vibration) explicitly as a shaped unit of time, which implies that a particle in space is

a shaped unit of time-space whose size is determined by the frequency of vibration. If

one understands Fourier analysis or even FM radio signals, this also implies that

complex molecular shapes can be expressed as frequency-modulated spherical

waves. That is exactly how quantum numbers were determined and used to reform

the modern version of the periodic table of elements. With that in mind, it is easy to

envision physical reality in terms of information content and the shape of particles

to have intension in the same sense that words express intention.

Variance re-presented in phase-space We can now return to Figure 2a and re-present it as a phase space. As we

have mentioned, light is a variance and though we are in the habit of saying that

light travels through space and time, it is equally correct to say that it varies in the

form of space-time and time-space. As variances, and are always

positive, and neither are directly measurable. It was also mentioned that a variance

is represented as a square space and therefore, a measurement is the square-root of

the variance, which is the standard deviation. In the square time-space, ,

lower case s represents the standardized unit of deviation from the origin, i.e. the

spatial radius of the light sphere and therefore, the distance that the surface of the


sphere travels or varies outward in time-space form for a given amount of space-

time. Thus 1 unit of light represents the variance we call motion of 1 unit in space-

time form (1 light-year) per unit of time-space form (1 year). And the unit of time

(year) cancels because it is expressed in both the numerator and denominator of the

ratio. It is just a dummy variable “unfolded” like a jack-knife (alluding to David

Bohm’s term of “enfolded” in the implicate order (Bohm 1980)) and used like a

balanced-scale measuring tool to express the implicit nature of motion referenced to

our standard clock-time-space.

Likewise, the same amount of positive standardized deviation in square

space-time, , is lower case t. This unit represents the temporal radius of the

same light-sphere that correlates with a given amount of time-space. Like all

standard deviations, both scales are positive, but if we were physically standing

with the light bulb when it flashed and were interested in using either of these

standard measuring tools, we would simply unfold them, pretend that we were the

center of the universe by setting and , arbitrarily assign polarity to the

axes and then flash the light and measure how it momentarily separates itself

(divides itself into our perception of quantum-sized space-time units).

In Figure 2b as compared to Figure 2a, the axes are rotated (time is vertical

and space horizontal) to show the Minkowski diagram as it is normally presented. It

is important to emphasize that the relation as it is normally expressed

represents the radius as a single dimension in space that increases with time, also as

a single dimension. Minkowski treated time in the classical manner, as if it is

actually one-dimensional – independent of space – so he used t, which is √ and

claimed (a priori) that the negative (polarized) axis represents the “past”. This was

the conventional wisdom of the time. Then he represented 3D space

unconventionally as two-dimensional on the same diagram, portrayed as a

“hypersurface of the present” – a square-space. It wouldn’t have made sense to

polarize those axes, so he didn’t. There may not be any rule against that for

mathematicians, but for physics it disables the model in that it prevents us from

visualizing the relations with angles. It was already out of balance, and acted like a


warped mirror or broken record. In other words, the Minkowski diagram was

broken and no longer a working model.

Points in this “Minkowski-space” correspond to events in spacetime and

there is one light-cone associated with every single event. The intersection of the

time axis with the “hypersurface” represent a special event, i.e. the present “now” at

and it creates the zero point problem – a singularity. It is purely a

mathematical problem because motion is a variance in space divided by a

variance in time and the expression , which should actually be written as

, specifically suggests that there is no variance in time at that point. So the

definition itself doesn’t work at that position in time-space.

Next in his explanation of spacetime, the equation ( ) was expanded

on one side to give ( ) and rearranged to give the four-dimensional

spacetime manifold , with . No physicist or mathematician

would blink an eye at the equation that describes a spherical expansion of light

( ), written as ( ). It is mathematically correct, because

the equation for a sphere is and even if we don’t know what

time really is, “everyone knows” that time must be treated as one scalar dimension.

So time is treated as the forth element of a “quaternion.”

Progress in mathematical physics from there required even more abstract

algebra and got so hairy that physicists and mathematicians failed to see eye-to-eye.

In fact, there was a long period in history when the physics and math departments

quit talking to each otheriii. Physicists with “common sense” couldn’t challenge the

wild new implications of the math and there was no place in the academic world for

a hybrid mathematician/physicist even up to the 1970s. (Gleick 1987, Pg. 66)

Eventually, certain mathematicians began calling themselves “mathematical

physicists” and used the power of computer modeling to convince academia (and

organizations that provided funding for research) that the images they generated

were real. So now, challenging them is a financial issue. However, some scientists

have begun to challenge them. Jim Baggott, for example with his book, Farewell to

reality. How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth (Baggott

2013) and Lee Smolin, a physicist who sent out a plea for help in his book, The


Trouble With Physics saying that this generation has failed to make any significant

contribution to science or society. (Smolin 2006)

The trouble, I submit, is that they are still thinking of time as an independent

entity. There are several different opinions about what that “entity” we call time

might be (Barbour 1999) (Burtt 2003) (Hawking 1990) (Smolin 2013)iv rather than

what it means or implies, but in classrooms it is still treated classically – as a

mysterious “thing” that somehow mixes with space to give us spacetime. The

solution to the problem proposed here is this; rather than trying to answer the

question, “What is time?” we change the question to “What is the meaning of the

word time?” And the answer is, as we already expressed, it means we have a tool

that we can unfold and use to express reality and thereby increase our level of

knowledge and expand our time-space sphere of knowledge.

Reflecting on the symmetry of space and time

Interpreting time in terms of cyclic units is not a new idea. In fact, we have

actually come full circle if one considers that cyclic time, based on the cycles of the

sun and moon, is the original and most obvious approach. According to philosopher

E. A. Burtt, in the days of Newton the treatment of time as an independent entity was

considered by many to be a philosophical blunder. In Metaphysical Foundations of

Modern Science (Burtt 2003), Burtt said:

“Clearly, just as we measure space, first by some magnitude, and learn

how much it is, later judging other congruent magnitudes by space; so

we first reckon time from some motion and afterwards judge other

motions by it; which is plainly nothing else than to compare some

motions with others by the mediation of time; just as by the mediation of

space we investigate the relations of magnitudes with each other.”

If time is a measure of motion, you cannot treat time as one-dimensional

while treating space as three. Motion in space is motion in time and vice versa (like

sand through an hour glass or the cyclic motion of the sun or a pendulum). They are


equivalent yet different characteristics of the same abstract essence. If the

expression for time-space (radius of the sphere) is unfolded to represent three

orthogonal dimensions, then the same must be done for space-time. In equation

format this is (

). If not, then they both must be

kept enfoldedv. Writing the equation as

(1)

means that space and time are equivalent, just as

(2)

means that energy and mass are equivalent. The term is just the conversion

factor that comes from arbitrary units of measurement (meters, miles, seconds,

years, etc). In natural units, it is just 1.0 light unit.

Looking at things from a different perspective, consider the “inverse

problem,” i.e. the multiplicative inverse of the equation , that is,

. In

terms of frequency, which is another name for a variance that is more akin to

“motion”, this is

(3)

where

is temporal frequency and

is spatial frequency. In essence,

frequency is the reflection in both space and time. Notice how the subscripts specify

the type of frequency we are talking about giving them similar intension as time-

space and space-time without having to express them as a pair of opposites, which

was necessary in the separation phase, when motion was separated and projected

onto the two-dimensional map. Frequency is therefore a back-projection into the

same third conceptual dimension as motion through which the other two can be

reflected and reintegrated.


When plotted on a space-time diagram, as shown in Figure 3, the line with

slope (c) represents the exact same line as in Figure 2a. In both cases, it represents a

conformal projection of the three-dimensional variance (energy in the motion

domain) onto the two-dimensional plane separated into a quantum domain and

relativistic domain. Because we understand that this third dimension is an integral

part of the model as a whole, we call it the Space-Time-Motion (STM) diagram.

Figure 3 The Inverse Problem: Inverse time versus inverse space

,

is the same as temporal frequency versus spatial frequency or .

Notice that other than zero, which represents no variance, no energy and

therefore nothingness, there is one and only one point on either axis that correlates

with both domains and is numerically equal; that is at the first increment, i.e. 1 unit.

That is where we would have said that the two domains are coupled when we

looked at them as being separate “entities” from our previously separated point of

view.

Coupled domains Normally when we make graphs, like S vs. T we are taught to represent them

as perpendicular axes and connect i.e. couple them by intersecting them where they

are numerically equal to zero. We call it “the origin” and it is just a reference point,

but if zero represents “nothing” in either domain, then this suggests that there is

nothing there in either domain to couple them. Nothing means no “thing” and since


all things are projections of energy, it would be more appropriate to call that point

the “zero-point-energy reference”. It’s “the nothing” that got captured or

encapsulated by “the something” that became a quantum energy or frequency

domain. In the light of this new perspective, what we were really doing with a

Cartesian plot of space versus time was treating the quantum domain as if it were an

infinitesimal circle to use as a “trick” for solving the problem, by pretending we

could stop time and define and then ignoring it. If we needed a measure of

motion at an explicit “quantum moment” in time, we would pull out the trick,

differentiate the function and get instantaneous velocity as the output. That trick is a

standard procedure in Calculus: take the limit as t approaches zero, i.e. we take the

derivative.

In terms of the systems approach, we can consider velocity to be the product

of two coupled systems. It’s the product of the system, i.e. multiplication, because it

is produced by the spatial motion system, which produces an output variance of

( ) coupled with a temporal motion system whose output variance is (

). We

would say that “the output” or “the derivative” of motion is derived from this

interaction as a product that is expressed at the output of the combined system.

Then it is rescaled and represented by a symbol ( ) and projected onto the

conformal map in the shape of a diagonal line (the diagonal line in Figure 3).

This could be expressed in terms of quantum mechanics as follows: the wave

function is operated on by the “energy operator” and then transferred or

transformed by the eigenfunction to its time-space form as a quantum unit of

instantaneous time-space energy ( ). (Since we haven’t yet introduced the

concept of time, it is expressed as a time-independent state by the time-independent

Schrodinger equation). We could represent this explicit function as a plane with

as the vertical axis and as the horizontal axis, but what would be the use? It would

be a static and meaningless picture. It has the potential to work as a model of energy

(recall that energy is defined as the ability to do work), but in order for it to actually

work we also need to represent time. Time is not an illusion; it is the dynamic

expression of action that gives life to the static expression, which is lame without it.


In quantum mechanics, time is introduced by a “time-evolution operator,”

which, after some complex mathematical manipulations in Dirac notation, turns out

to be the same as the Hamiltonian representing the total energy of the system

(Goswami 1992, Pg. 126-128). The result is the time-dependent form of the

Schrodinger equation, which is the quantum wave function that lends itself to being

“collapsed” into an instantaneous space-time form: in other words, a quantum unit

of energy expressed in a unit of space-time. Here we will use the expression

( ) to represent the space-time form of energy and superimpose a plane of

space-time energy over the time-space energy plane already discussed. Then we

remove the subscripts that distinguish energy as being spatial versus temporal and

the result is shown as the STM diagram in Figure 4.

Figure 4 The inverse temporal domain scaled by Planck's constant is the energy of a quantum unit.

In this form the STM diagram represents reality as a self-organizing control

system with a dashed circular shape drawn to represent an implicit boundary that

has the potential to separate the quantum domain from the relativistic domain. In


quantum mechanics, we call that a “potential well.” This can be compared to the

system diagram shown in Figure 1. The background relativistic plane is the open

system into which “output” energy flows but then implicitly feeds back to the

“input” due to the fact that the quantum domain is an integral part of and therefore

superimposed on the background plane. That portion of the background (“behind”

the quantum domain) correlates with the feedback branch in Figure 1. Thus we have

accounted for an input, output and feedback branch. So what parts of Figure 4

correlate with “controller” and “function?”

Recall that we said that the two domains are coupled at the points on the axes

marked as 1 unit. If we use the same sized scale as the two axes and mark a point at

1 unit radially outward on the diagonal line, this point would couple the point where

motion = 1 in the elevated dimension, to the plane. We (the observer looking down

from the elevated domain of motion) could then move our perspective down to that

point. From that point of view, we could look either inward toward the quantum

domain or outward toward the relativistic domain. That boundary between a

quantum particle and the outside world is where the feedback from the outside

mixes with the information that previously organized into the particle. That is the

point that we can correlate with “Controller” in the control system diagram.

The function of the transfer function The “Function” block is the transfer function, which is an implicit function of

both space and time so it cannot be drawn explicitly on the map. Mathematically, an

explicit equation is one that expresses one variable in terms of another, like

or . In each case, the y is an explicit function of x and is therefore often

written as ( ). An implicit function of x and y, call it M, would be written

( ) for example. In this case, M stands for motion and the implicit equation

for space and time from the discussion above was ( ) . In the ST

plane, this implies or points at the origin because any set of numbers that we

substitute for s and t must combine to give zero in order to solve the equation. If

, then the set of solutions are all of the points where s and t are the same


number, which when plotted in the plane would be a line of dots at (1,1), (2,2), (3,3)

… These are points on the diagonal line, but they do not include the regions in

between the points and they are not separated by the same amount as the points on

the two axes, so it is stretched with respect to the standard deviations and the first

point on the diagonal line does not correlate with the point that is coupled from

above in the motion domain.

In effect, the equation refers to the origin (the singularity that equals 0) as if

it was real, i.e. really something rather than nothing, but the points that are real

solutions to the equation imply the line. In other words, the line exists as a variance

in the implicate order, and the dots produce a sort of shadow on the plane. The line

itself must be formed (the implicit must be transformed or explicated) by the

system. This transformation can be seen by representing ( ) in phase space

where s still represents linear space but c represents actual variance and explicitly

drawn as a phasor with magnitude ( ) and angular velocity ( ), as shown in Figure

5. In effect, it forms a “droplet of light” (labeled inner space) on a dark outer space

background.

Figure 5 Variance of motion from the higher implicit domain projected “down” onto the two-dimensional space-time plane as a phasor that rotates with an angular frequency . Because , the phasor must be conceptually separated into two phasors rotating in opposite directions.

In that way, ( ) represents the exact same circle as the quantum domain

except now, the c represents the initial slope and also represents the radius like a


wire that couples the input to the output in Figure 1. Not only does the speed of light

refer to the linear motion, it also refers to non-linear, spinning motion of this droplet

of light, which it momentarily separated from the background field. As a unit of

space-time, “momentarily” means quantum moments in time, but if a physical

particle in space is a shaped unit of time-space, spun out of nothingness, then

momentarily means that it projects as a unit of momentum.

Notice also that the region shown back in Figure 4 between the circular

quantum domain and the point (1, 1) is in that implicit zone between explicit

singular dots. One dashed line, representing the implicit equation ( )

, is drawn vertically up from the “event reference” we call “now” at

and

another one is drawn horizontally over from “here” at

. The region

enclosed by the quantum domain and these lines (call it a quantum gap) is shown in

Figure 5 as a dashed arrow as a hybrid phasor/linear vector, which represents a

potential particle (like an electron cloud). This region would correspond to the

energy gap between electron orbitals in the atomic model. In the system model, it is

the “Function” block, where the implicit transfer function fits.

The transfer function is the implicit characteristic equation, but it can be

transformed into an explicit (analytical) function simply by integrating the function

and thus reintegrating the quantum domain back into the relativistic domain. In

control system engineering, the quantum unit is expressed by the exponential

equation , where here the letter s was chosen by the engineer who wrote the

textbook to represent a complex number. If we use this to represent it as frequency,

we would use , so this is the same as a radial wave in space (scaled as r) expressed

as at , which has a magnitude of 1. This is multiplied by the input signal,

( ), and the product is integrated from 0 to infinity. As a whole, this interal

equation is called the Laplace transform, ( ). We can use this to illustrate how a

numerical representation of a quantum unit, which has not been differentiated into

a system of units, can be integrated into the system. We simply take the Laplace

transform of 1 and we get


( ( ) ) ∫ ( )

⁄

Then, we can get the model “up and running” by naming the first integrated

quantum unit “a” and taking the Laplace transform to get

( )

This shifts the reference point from the origin out to the event reference (the first t

unit). We could repeat this operation to produce a logistic equation in complexity

theory using the same input function and then simply multiply the two Laplace

transformed functions together analytically to get a new product. In order to then

reintegrate the product back into the background, we take the inverse Laplace

transform. If, instead of using the Laplace transform, we wanted to do this operation

using functions of time, we could do it stepwise as an iterative logistic equation or

use the convolution integral. Note that the word convolution provides a direct

implication from the math of physics to the words in anthropology. If this systems

approach is applied to the growth, adaptations and transformations of living

organisms, then it implies that the theory of evolution should be renamed the

theory of convolution. And in cognitive science, we should refer to the convolution

of consciousness.

This model can also be used to better understand phase transformations

including those in chemistry and the natural changes we call seasons. If we consider

seasons to be phases, the expression of high-order moments in space-time, they can

be correlated with high-order moments in time-space (complex particles with

momentum). By modeling each particle in the standard model of particle physics as

a character in the systems model, and determining the appropriate transformed

equation, we could model any element, chemical compound or complex system

using an electronic circuit as a meta-form. There are well-known correlations


between mechanical characteristics, (such as friction, inertia, and heat capacity) and

electrical component characteristics, (as resistance, inductance and capacitance).

The goal would be to model the entire Gaia-sphere as an integrated system to

include transfer functions for subsystems that may have a substantial effect on the

weather, which would represent the feedback block. Even a simple electronic

harmonic oscillator uses feedback to produce a cyclic output that can be separated

into four sub-phases. Because the variances in an electronic signal disappear

immediately, non-physical functions would be modeled as signals. Physics

characteristic are those that have momentum and contribute to the inductive nature

of the system. The capacitive characteristic of mass is expressed by the concept that

physical particles are units of time-space, meaning that they store information,

exactly like a capacitor stores energy as charge, but also like a computer chip stores

a tremendous amount of memory. It is beyond the scope of this presentation to

elaborate, but I, the author, suspect that the human consciousness will be found to

have the dominant transfer function and therefore a very large effect on the climate,

even more so than things like carbon emissions.

***

According to Capra and Luisi, although the study of consciousness became

established as a broad, interdisciplinary field of study in the 1990s, as of 2014, there

was still “a bewildering variety of approaches to the study of consciousness by

quantum physicists, biologists, cognitive scientists, and philosophers.” (Capra and

Luisi 2014, Pg. 259) If we apply the STM model to the mind-body system, we can

identify the body with the quantum domain, the self with “the observer” as the

“Controller” and another self (Carl Jung’s “shadow” self as in, “I see myself fitting in

this model”) as a seemingly separate, implicit mind or spiritual being. As the mind-

body system moves through the process of life, both linearly (motion) and non-

linearly (emotion), information from within the system is output into the world and

it, along with other information from the outside world is fed back to the input. It

convolves with and transforms the system, storing information by modifying the


transfer function (physical adaptation) and expanding the mind. Eventually, it

reaches a critical point and the mind experiences a quantum leap to the next level,

changing both the physical and psychological characteristics. The “shadow” changes

to a “persona” – a new character role to fit the new level of maturity with greater

power to shape his or her self and the surrounding world.

How the model works to separate force from power There is little or no mention of power in introductory quantum mechanics

textbooks. Why should there be? There is really no need to discuss power because, if

everything is made of energy, that is what we need to focus on – quantum energy

states. We need to know all about the different states of energy because we want to

know what we can do with them. What can we do? We can build stuff, and we can

make stuff work for us. Once we build stuff then making it work for us is power. Isn’t

that reality the purpose of science as a business? Power is a dynamic expression of

how we use energy, and that is not really of interest in basic quantum mechanics. In

physics, power is the amount of energy expended per unit time and that’s a fact, but

it is just one way to look at it. Power is also about the amount of energy stored per

unit time, but we never think of it that way. We only think about the end product –

the static unit that got stored, like in a battery, and again that is what we call energy.

Despite what was just said about it not being of interest, power is included in

a very technical book, Quantum Field Theory, written by the celebrated physicist

Michio Kaku. After a discussion about energy-momentum tensors, power is

introduced with a single sentence, in which he states that the energy-momentum

tensor is “recognized as the energy density and the Poynting vector.” (Kaku 1993,

Pg. 102) A Poynting vector is the name for an expression of power as a spatial

variancevi. However, the only reason it was introduced was to use it as a

confirmation: “the energy-momentum tensor is a physically acceptable quantity and

compatible with gauge invariance.” Then Kaku dives back into the weeds of

relativistic quantum mechanics.


One reason we point this out here is also to serve as a confirmation: the STM

diagram can also be correlated with power because it represents an energy-

momentum tensor. We can see this by rewriting the spatial energy expression

as , where

is the momentum. Thus, even without

understanding the complexities of QFT we can interpret STM diagram – the

superposition of the temporal expression of energy with the spatial expression of

momentum – as energy density or power. The classical definition of power, as

energy per unit time can also be derived from it by interpreting the diagram as the

time-space form of energy (E) divided by its instantaneous space-time form, i.e. a

quantum unit of time (t); thus

.

So what? Why is this important to know? Because it tells us that even the

tiniest vibrations of information energy that comes from the outside of us as

physical systems and is fed back into our mind-body systems is stored, not as

potential energy, but as potential power in the form of knowledge. Everyone knows

that knowledge is power. We do not use the term “potential power” anywhere in

physics or engineering, perhaps because it would be considered redundant; the

word “potential” is from the Latin potentia, which already means "power." It

describes something or someone that has the power to become something. It is

important for quantum particles to be something, but it is more important for us to

understand that they can do something and become something else. It is also

important to understand what they can become. Then, because we understand the

process, we understand that what they become is just another phase of being and

we want to know what they can become in the next phase of the process. Notice I

said we want to know what they can become, but that may not be possible based on

our current power to comprehend, so in order to increase that power, we need to

know how to increase our power. Tragically, we humans, who are the embodiment

of quantum power, who know that we are becoming something whole – something

that is greater than the sum of our parts – have a very bad habit of using and

burning up our power through the use of force.


There is an excellent book written by David R. Hawkins called Power vs. Force

that focuses on the difference in terms of human behavior. (Hawkins 2002) We can

see the difference between power and force in the STM diagram, starting with

power. We look at the plane of energy as it is scaled by or “divided by” the scale

units of the horizontal axis and recognize this temporal axis itself represents energy

divided by time as a conformal map of power onto a single line.

Force is also represented in the STM diagram. If we do the same conformal

projection of energy onto the vertical spatial axis we can see that the axis represents

energy divided by distance and that is the classic definition of force,

. Force

correlates with the static form of action at the output of a system that potentially

pushes and pulls in the relativistic domain. It doesn’t actually move anything

because once motion starts, it’s no longer force; it’s energy that is being expended in

the form of motion. It’s the product of the system and that product is “units of

motion” called space. Whatever forces something to move is transforming its stored

energy into actual units of space and that simply contributes to the expansion of the

universe (the relativistic domain). Thankfully, it is not entirely wasted energy

because it generates vibrations that act as feedback, so it’s all-good. The part of it

that is in the form of random chaotic patterns serves to create the huge variety of

swirling, twisted bifurcations that we can see in the Mandelbrot plots called fractals.

Power is the energy that is stored inside the boundaries of the organized as

silhouettes framed by chaos that we can see “popping up” as we zoom into a

Mandelbrot plot. Those organized patterns are literally created by the chaotic

framework, so it is apparent that chaos is a “necessary evil.” The framework or

structure of reality is what creates the closed system and the power that is stored

within those patterns forms the transfer functions that allow the self-control system

to emerge. When the controller forms, it has the power to choose whether to store

more energy implicitly or to use it to build and fortify the explicit framework. In the

physical form, some of the power must be used as output in order to interact with

the outside world and to generate feedback, which we think of as dissipated energy,

but the part that is not dissipated maintains and increases self-order. As part of the


greater system, it can use power to change the outside world with or without the use

of force. In mass, ( ) it has the power to destroy its entire world with

nuclear-powered force, but in time, ( ) it grows to realize that it has the same

power en masse to create a new world.

Conclusion Correspondence between the STM model and other expressions in physics

and chemistry that have been proven in both classical and modern versions gives

the model itself its power. Working with the model gives the user more power of

understanding and the ability to reflect on all of the other forms of expression that

have been proven in science. The STM model works to represent self-actualization

in both physical and mental processes. Capra and Luisi include a discussion about

how the systems approach is helping cognitive science and work continues on

correlating system “output” products with terms used in modern physics. In terms

of nuclear physics, the stored power correlates with the inner forces (nuclear and

chemical binding energy, also expressed as strong force, weak force, nuclear force

and electromagnetic force in the standard model of particle physics).

We already understand the holomorphic system approach because it serves

to power processes identified by many different names in many different branches

of science and engineering. So it will not be very difficult to recognize it and

understand its tremendous value as a basic crystalizing structure upon which we

can rebuild our world. Simply knowing that the organized pattern is all around us

will not serve to fortify it. What we now need are engineers to establish a new

vocation, which is called “Holomorphic Engineering.” That is the subject of a new

book being reviewed and soon to be published on Amazon entitled (T. J. StJohn

2021).


Bibliography

Anderson, Elmer E. Introduction to Modern Physics. Saunders College Publishing, 1982. Baggott, Jim. Farewell to Reality. How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth . Kindle. Pegasus Books, 2013. Barbour, Julian. The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Kindle. Oxford University Press, 1999. Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. 1980. Bullard, Theresa. The Game Changers. Social Alchemists in the 21st Century . Self published, 2012. Burtt, E. A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003. Cahill, Reginald T. Process Physics: From Information Theory To Quantum Space And Matter. Amazon, 2005. Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. 3rd. Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc, 1975. Capra, Fritjof, and Pier Luigi Luisi. The Systems View of Life, A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Davies, Paul, and Niels Gregersen, . Information and the Nature of Reality From Physics to Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Eastman, Timothy E., and Hank Keeton. Physics and Whitehead, Quantum, Process, and Experience. New York: State University of New York Press, 2004. Gleick, James. Chaos. Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Group, 1987. Goswami, Amit. Quantum Mechanics. Wm C. Brown Publishers, 1992. Grof, Stanislav. The Holotropic Mind. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 1993. Halliday, David, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker. Fundamentals of Physics, Fourth edition, Extended. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 1993. Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time; From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam Books, 1990. Hawkins, David R. Power vs Force. The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Carlsbad, CA: Hat House, Inc, 2002. Hestenes, David. "Oersted Medal Lecture 2002: Reforming the Mathematical Language of Physics." Am. J. Phys. 71, no. 2 (Feb 2003): 104-121. Kaku, Michio. Quantum Field Theory, A Modern Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Kreyszig, Erwin. Advanced Engineering Mathematics. 4th. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979. Krijten-Lewerissa, K., H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. van Joolingen. "Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res 13, no. 010109 (Feb 2017). Mantz, Christiaan L. M., and Tomislav Prokopec. "Resolving Curvature Singularities in Holomorphic Gravity." Found. Phys. 41 (2011): 1597-1633. Morrison, Michael A. Understanding Quantum Physics: A User's Manual. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.


Ogata, Katsuhiko. Modern Control Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1970. Pribram, Karl. "The Holographic Hypothesis of Brain Function: A meeting of minds." Karl Pribram. 1984. http://www.karlpribram.com/data-papers/ (accessed 2018). Smolin, Lee. The Trouble With Physics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. —. Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. Kindle. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013. St. John, Theodore. "The Unity of Space and Time." viXra. 2014. http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0218. St.John, Theodore. "The Holomorphic Process-Understanding The Holographic Nature Of Reality As A Metamorphic Process." Archives of Physics Research 9, no. 2 (2018): 17-44. StJohn, Theodore J. Introduction to Holomorphic Engineering – How to use the new science of wholeness, which has emerged out of modern mainstream science, to engineer harmony in the world. 1st. Amazon, 2021. StJohn, Theodore. "The Space-Time-Motion Model." viXra. 2014. http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045. Suskind, Leonard. "The World as a Hologram." Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (1995): 6377. Talbot, Michael. The Holographic Universe. New York: HarperCollins, 1991. Tong, David. "Quantum Fields." The Royal Institution. Cambridge, Feb 15, 2017. Varela, Francisco, and Humberto Maturana. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. 1972/1980. Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. Edinburgh: Simon and Schuster, 1929. Wolff, Milo. "The Wave Structure of Matter." 2006. http://wsminfo.org/index.htm (accessed 2018).

i It’s been said that when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. It’s all about perspective. ii Note that the fourth step was called “reunification” in the reference. Reintegration is used here to refer explicitly to the mathematical process of integration in Calculus and to emphasize that the higher level needs to be thought of in terms of wholeness rather than a singularity, which is what unification or unity implies. iii There was a “long divorce” between physics and math; see A struggle for the soul of theoretical physics at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01171-0 iv Physicist Lee Smolin considers the time problem to be “the single most important problem facing science as we probe more deeply into the fundamentals of the universe.” (Smolin, Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe 2013)

Newton’s idea of absolute time and space –as independent and separate aspects of objective reality, and not dependent on physical events or on each


other and independent of any perceiver – was superseded by Einstein who showed that a single event does not happen simultaneously to two observers moving relative to each other. So in relativistic physics, time is considered one of four dimensions of spacetime. But in quantum physics, position and time are considered separate, independent quantities. (Morrison 1990, 58)

Physicist Julian Barbour said, “Time does not exist. All that exists are things that change. What we call time is – in classical physics at least – simply a complex of rules that govern the change.” (Barbour 1999, Loc 2327)

Stephen Hawking stated that time exists, but is comprised of a real and imaginary component. “Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space.” Thermodynamic and cosmological time are real – they describe the increase in entropy of the universe, which started with the big bang and provide the arrow of time that points in the same direction as the expanding universe. (Hawking 1990, 143-155)

And Lee Smolin says that time is real. “Embracing time [as real] means believing that reality consists only of what’s real in each moment of time. Whatever is real in our universe is real in a moment of time, which is one of a succession of moments.” (Smolin, Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe 2013, Loc 80)

v Terms like implicit, explicit, unfolded and enfolded, were first presented by physicist David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order vi It is just a happy coincidence that the name Poynting sounds like “pointing” because as a vector, it actually points in a particular direction.

abstract - vixra.org

Documents